Hi. Daniel.
In the specification, mentioning of MA WG is not good. We already had got similar comment from Robin earlier.
So I hope we don’t have to go this way ;)
What do you think ?
Best regards,
Wonsuk.
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Park
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:14 PM
To: Veronique Malaise
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: concern about the definition of ontology in the ontology document
I love to add Veronique's sentence to our ontology definition. Wonsuk, please do this.
Thanks Veronique.
Daniel
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl> wrote:
Dear all,
I think that readers of the ontology document
http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html
might have some troubles making the link between the (very correct) definition of what an ontology is, in section 2, and the proposal of the group (a list of properties defined in prose, not in a formal language). The text of the ontology document is copied below, followed by a line I propose to add to make the link clearer. What do you think?
Best regards,
Véronique
"An ontology is a formal, explicit specification of a shared, machine-readable vocabulary and meanings, in the form of various entities and relationships between them, to describe knowledge about the contents of one or more related subject domains throughout the life cycle of its existence. These entities and relationships are used to represent knowledge in the set of related subject domains. Formal refers to the fact that the ontology should be representable in a formal grammar. Explicit means that the entities and relationships used, and the constraints on their use, are precisely and unambiguously defined in a declarative language suitable for knowledge representation. Shared means that all users of an ontology will represent a concept using the same or equivalent set of entities and relationships. Subject domain refers to the content of the universe of discourse being represented by the ontology"
I propose to add something like:
"In this recommendation, the vocabulary in question is the list of core properties (relationships) defined in the ma namespace, and the machine-readable format is not specified here: the recommendation provides a simple text description and definition of the relationships. An implementation of the vocabulary in RDF [1] has been developed in the MAWG RDF? task force [2]. Implementations in different formats are nevertheless allowed.
[1] http://www.w3.org/RDF/
[2]ref to the URL of the document of the modeling task force
--
Soohong Daniel Park
http://www.soohongp.com